Is Greenland the reward?

RDKirk · Jan 12, 2026

mindlight said:
China is unlikely to physically invade the place and Russia would struggle to fabricate an historical claim. Invasion would be a logistical nightmare for both. Denmark with British/ French support could probably thwart an attack without US support or at least make it prohibitively costly. Mining concessions to China or Russia by Greenlanders asserting independence from USA is more likely threat

Keeping an invasion force off Greenland would be laughably easy, even trivial, for any country with cruise missiles and bombers because establishing and maintaining a foothold would be so miserably difficult.

In Arctic conditions, logistics dominate combat power. Russia struggles with this even inside its own Arctic territory.

There is no land route to support the logistics of contested invasion, and the sea routes are blocked nine months of the year. The Russians have some icebreakers, but those can't meet the logistics requirement and would be sitting ducks for aircraft launched from the CONUS or carriers in the North Atlantic.

Essentially, establishing and maintaining military forces on Greenland requires a permissive environment.

Aryeh Jay · Jan 13, 2026

Nithavela said:
And a few decades later the US seized control of Hawaii after deposing their queen and forcing her to abdicate under threat of execution.

Yeah, nothing new here.

She had a choice, she chose to join the winning team.

mindlight · Jan 14, 2026

RDKirk said:
Keeping an invasion force off Greenland would be laughably easy, even trivial, for any country with cruise missiles and bombers because establishing and maintaining a foothold would be so miserably difficult.

In Arctic conditions, logistics dominate combat power. Russia struggles with this even inside its own Arctic territory.

There is no land route to support the logistics of contested invasion, and the sea routes are blocked nine months of the year. The Russians have some icebreakers, but those can't meet the logistics requirement and would be sitting ducks for aircraft launched from the CONUS or carriers in the North Atlantic.

Essentially, establishing and maintaining military forces on Greenland requires a permissive environment.

The problem with logistics and the fact that the USA has been closing down bases and reducing its military footprint over the last decades indicates that this is not Americas key concern with Greenland. The key thing is owning the resources on the island and being free to exploit them.

RDKirk · Jan 14, 2026

mindlight said:
The problem with logistics and the fact that the USA has been closing down bases and reducing its military footprint over the last decades indicates that this is not Americas key concern with Greenland. The key thing is owning the resources on the island and being free to exploit them.

Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'

https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-psychologically-important-11883940

President Donald Trump revealed in a new interview with The New York Times that his quest for full “ownership” of Greenland is "psychologically important” to him.
During a two-hour sit-down with multiple Times reporters on Jan. 7, Trump was questioned about why he won't just send more American troops to Greenland — which is legal under a Cold War–era agreement — if his goal is to fend off foreign threats. The president replied by saying that he won't feel comfortable unless he owns the island.
"Why is ownership important here?" Times national security correspondent David E. Sanger asked.
"Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success," Trump, 79, replied. "I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base."
White House correspondent Katie Rogers chimed in to ask, "Psychologically important to you or to the United States?"
“Psychologically important for me," Trump answered. "Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything."

mindlight · Jan 14, 2026

RDKirk said:
Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'

https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-psychologically-important-11883940

President Donald Trump revealed in a new interview with The New York Times that his quest for full “ownership” of Greenland is "psychologically important” to him.
During a two-hour sit-down with multiple Times reporters on Jan. 7, Trump was questioned about why he won't just send more American troops to Greenland — which is legal under a Cold War–era agreement — if his goal is to fend off foreign threats. The president replied by saying that he won't feel comfortable unless he owns the island.
"Why is ownership important here?" Times national security correspondent David E. Sanger asked.
"Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success," Trump, 79, replied. "I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base."
White House correspondent Katie Rogers chimed in to ask, "Psychologically important to you or to the United States?"
“Psychologically important for me," Trump answered. "Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything."

That is so wrong by Trump, on so many levels.

It makes no strategic sense whatsoever to take something that you have full access to anyway at the cost of losing all your friends, who add to your power and advantage in the world. Indeed without European NATO the USA has accepted the Russian and Chinese vision that we live in a multipolar world. The argument about Greenland being crucial for the Golden Dome is also invalidated by the military freedom they have already been given there. It is clear that Denmark has neglected its article 3 responsibilities over many years but given that the USA has full access anyway this does not have to be a problem for the USA unless Greenland goes independent and tells the USA to leave.

Is Trump really going to break NATO to make a Real Estate deal psychologically important to him?

Ophiolite · Jan 14, 2026

Laodicean60 said:
Don't worry they'll deal with each other once they're done with the USA.

The deal is likely to be China reclaiming large swathes of Siberia that previously were part of the Chinese Empire.

Ophiolite's First Law of Geopolitics: Large countries always turn into aggressive dictatorships even if they pretend to be democracies.
Ophiolite's Second Law of Geopolitics: there are always many exceptions to the First Law.
Conclusion: A week really is a long time in geopolitics.

tz620q · Jan 14, 2026

mindlight said:
The problem with logistics and the fact that the USA has been closing down bases and reducing its military footprint over the last decades indicates that this is not Americas key concern with Greenland. The key thing is owning the resources on the island and being free to exploit them.

The bases were mostly DEW (Distant Early Warning) stations that were built during the cold war, sparsely manned, and closed in the early 1990's when the Cold War ended. That was over 30 years ago and now with hypersonic missiles and Russia again being aggressive and threatening WWIII, the need for advanced warning stations has become more important. Of course, all of this could be fixed using existing agreements.

But that is just one aspect of this situation. The other is the rare earth minerals and oil found there. China's last 5 year plan {2021-2025) included creating a "super-icebreaker". Last time I looked, there was not a lot of ice around China or even the South China Sea that they see as their area of influence. When the largest ship building country in the world is developing icebreakers, you have to wonder what they are going to use them for. Add to that they have tried to monopolize the rare earth production around the world and it is not hard to see a threat to Greenland. So either Denmark will defend Greenland from China or they will depend on NATO and more specifically, the U.S. That leaves the U.S. with the responsibility for defending an area with no benefits derived from the economic opportunities there.

Do I think China will try to militarily take Greenland? Absolutely not. They will probably just offer the Danes or the Greenlanders so much money to allow China to mine the minerals and drill for the oil, that the natives will agree. Then China will bring in a Chinese firm, build Chinese infrastructure, hire Chinese workers and proceed to eat the elephant one bite at a time. In twenty years, most of the "Greenlanders" will be Chinese, most of the wealth of the country will be going to China, most of the local monetary power to get anything done will depend on the largesse of the Chinese Communist Party, and the de facto ruler of Greenland will be China.

Aryeh Jay · Saturday at 7:23 AM

Ophiolite said:
The deal is likely to be China reclaiming large swathes of Siberia that previously were part of the Chinese Empire.

Ophiolite's First Law of Geopolitics: Large countries always turn into aggressive dictatorships even if they pretend to be democracies.
Ophiolite's Second Law of Geopolitics: there are always many exceptions to the First Law.
Conclusion: A week really is a long time in geopolitics.

Never get into a land war in Asia.

RDKirk · Saturday at 5:30 PM

mindlight said:
Th In the meantime China and Russia can easily be excluded from Greenland by joint NATO pressure.

This part needs to be repeated.

Nobody is hanging on to Greenland without everyone else's acquiescence. Just getting through a winter is tough enough without having to defend yourself militarily.

People keep talking about "bases" on Greenland like it's a walk in the park. Break up their resupply schedule, and they're done. We got away with it in WWII because nobody had cruise missiles and accurate targeting.

mindlight · 2026-01-20T00:34:58-0600

Aryeh Jay said:
Never get into a land war in Asia.

Trust in God and keep your powder dry ;-)

mindlight · 2026-01-20T00:38:06-0600

Ophiolite said:
The deal is likely to be China reclaiming large swathes of Siberia that previously were part of the Chinese Empire.

Ophiolite's First Law of Geopolitics: Large countries always turn into aggressive dictatorships even if they pretend to be democracies.
Ophiolite's Second Law of Geopolitics: there are always many exceptions to the First Law.
Conclusion: A week really is a long time in geopolitics.

Tom Clancy - The Bear and the Dragon

The Qing never controlled inland Siberia. Mostly the sea areas of the Far East.

mindlight · 2026-01-20T00:43:42-0600

tz620q said:
The bases were mostly DEW (Distant Early Warning) stations that were built during the cold war, sparsely manned, and closed in the early 1990's when the Cold War ended. That was over 30 years ago and now with hypersonic missiles and Russia again being aggressive and threatening WWIII, the need for advanced warning stations has become more important. Of course, all of this could be fixed using existing agreements.

But that is just one aspect of this situation. The other is the rare earth minerals and oil found there. China's last 5 year plan {2021-2025) included creating a "super-icebreaker". Last time I looked, there was not a lot of ice around China or even the South China Sea that they see as their area of influence. When the largest ship building country in the world is developing icebreakers, you have to wonder what they are going to use them for. Add to that they have tried to monopolize the rare earth production around the world and it is not hard to see a threat to Greenland. So either Denmark will defend Greenland from China or they will depend on NATO and more specifically, the U.S. That leaves the U.S. with the responsibility for defending an area with no benefits derived from the economic opportunities there.

Do I think China will try to militarily take Greenland? Absolutely not. They will probably just offer the Danes or the Greenlanders so much money to allow China to mine the minerals and drill for the oil, that the natives will agree. Then China will bring in a Chinese firm, build Chinese infrastructure, hire Chinese workers and proceed to eat the elephant one bite at a time. In twenty years, most of the "Greenlanders" will be Chinese, most of the wealth of the country will be going to China, most of the local monetary power to get anything done will depend on the largesse of the Chinese Communist Party, and the de facto ruler of Greenland will be China.

I can see the need for Early Warning facilities and even missile bases in Greenland to defend the USA. Though these would be vulnerable to any planned and systematic assault. Having these does not require sovereignty over Greenland though.

Chinese icebreakers are more likely to do with the polar silk road, trade routes through the Artic. They would not be much good supporting land forces deployed to Greenland. China has no Artic borders and so its claims there are weak and would require a more commercial approach with lucrative contracts. So the Chinese approach to Greenland would be more Ferengi than Klingon.

mindlight · 2026-01-20T00:49:12-0600

RDKirk said:
This part needs to be repeated.

Nobody is hanging on to Greenland without everyone else's acquiescence. Just getting through a winter is tough enough without having to defend yourself militarily.

People keep talking about "bases" on Greenland like it's a walk in the park. Break up their resupply schedule, and they're done. We got away with it in WWII because nobody had cruise missiles and accurate targeting.

Yep logistically, military presence whether friendly or unfriendly is fragile. The USA could resolve the vulnerabilities of their own defenses here by a greater investment in more secure facilities with strong inventories for prolonged periods of no supply and by choosing more secure rocky locations.

Greenlanders consent or opposition to this is most likely inconsequential as they are not armed for a struggle against the USA. There are no extra benefits of AMERICAN sovereignty that justify the strategic loss of splitting NATO.

Edit : to clarify which sovereignty I was talking about

RDKirk · 2026-01-20T05:07:48-0600

mindlight said:
Yep logistically, military presence whether friendly or unfriendly is fragile. The USA could resolve the vulnerabilities of their own defenses here by a greater investment in more secure facilities with strong inventories for prolonged periods of no supply and by choosing more secure rocky locations.

Greenlanders consent or opposition to this is most likely inconsequential as they are not armed for a struggle against the USA. There are no extra benefits of sovereignty that justify the strategic loss of splitting NATO.

You are speaking to me as though I've been advocating for Greenland sovereignty.

mindlight · 2026-01-20T05:48:48-0600

RDKirk said:
You are speaking to me as though I've been advocating for Greenland sovereignty.

Sorry if I misread you but isn't everyone else's acquiescence akin to the international recognition implicit ín modern definitions of sovereignty and therefore Denmark's sovereignty which has been endorsed, for now, by the Greenlanders electoral process. If you do not mean this then not sure what you mean. Trump wants US Sovereignty which currently belongs to Denmark. Greenlanders are not independent by any definition and cannot support or defend themselves and so it would be wrong to suggest they are sovereign.

RDKirk · 2026-01-20T06:04:50-0600

mindlight said:
Sorry if I misread you but isn't everyone else's acquiescence akin to the international recognition implicit ín modern definitions of sovereignty and therefore Denmark's sovereignty which has been endorsed, for now, by the Greenlanders electoral process. If you do not mean this then not sure what you mean. Trump wants US Sovereignty which currently belongs to Denmark. Greenlanders are not independent by any definition and cannot support or defend themselves and so it would be wrong to suggest they are sovereign.

No, that's not what "everyone else's acquiescence" means in the context of my post about the physical difficulty of militarily occupying Greenland.

In order to military occupy Greenland today (in the day of cruise missiles and drones), it requires nobody else trying to dislodge you. Being under siege in Greenland is a death trap.

What we can do--what any one of the current significant players can do--is keep anyone else from having a secure base on Greenland. It's easy to make and keep Greenland a "no man's land," if military force alone is the context.

mindlight · 2026-01-20T06:46:36-0600

RDKirk said:
No, that's not what "everyone else's acquiescence" means in the context of my post about the physical difficulty of militarily occupying Greenland.

In order to military occupy Greenland today (in the day of cruise missiles and drones), it requires nobody else trying to dislodge you. Being under siege in Greenland is a death trap.

What we can do--what any one of the current significant players can do--is keep anyone else from having a secure base on Greenland. It's easy to make and keep Greenland a "no man's land," if military force alone is the context.

Militarily Greenland's strategic value is that ballistic or hypersonic missiles could transit over it, it anchors North Atlantic Access e.g. concerned with a Russian naval breakout, it supports EW, ISR and space related infrastructure. The emphasis on surveillance, EW, sensors and Drone based ISR raise the cost of covert or rapid incursions and give time for political and larger scale military responses. This all integrates into the existing NATO structures and serves to increase the awareness and cost of incursions.

You are right that logistics are the primary issue in this case hence the need for prepositioned, very discreet supply dumps in the region. Also there is a need for icebreakers to enable logistics and signal intent to defend. To some extent they also allow the NATO naval advantage to be fully utilized.

But such direct attacks by China or Russia are very unlikely. NATO naval and air dominance is an adequate deterrent. . The incursion is more likely to be commercial and intelligence related with surveillance and discreet resources being infiltrated onto the island.

In fact the most plausible danger scenario is that Greenland declares independence and then invites the Chinese to pay for that with mining concessions. Trumps tactics is only making such a scenario more likely. Then there is a clear and present danger to the USA and a reason to annex the island. But so long as it is under Denmark then it is a part of the NATO defensive arrangement.

Militarily what Trump does not seem to understand is that annexing Greenland and splitting the NATO alliance leaves the US vulnerable to a Russian Naval breakout and weaponry like the SSBN carrying the East coast Tsunami nukes. So he removes one transit route and opens another. The broader NATO strategy of containing a Russian naval breakout currently requires the participation of European allies like UK and Norway as well as Denmark and needs land anchors at either end.

tz620q · 2026-01-20T12:15:05-0600

mindlight said:
I can see the need for Early Warning facilities and even missile bases in Greenland to defend the USA. Though these would be vulnerable to any planned and systematic assault. Having these does not require sovereignty over Greenland though.

Chinese icebreakers are more likely to do with the polar silk road, trade routes through the Artic. They would not be much good supporting land forces deployed to Greenland. China has no Artic borders and so its claims there are weak and would require a more commercial approach with lucrative contracts. So the Chinese approach to Greenland would be more Ferengi than Klingon.

Agreed. China did invest in Energy Transition Minerals/Greenland Minerals(Kvanefjeld ) through Shenghe. This prompted American, Canadian, British, and Australian investors to try to stop Chinese involvement in mining in Greenland. The outcome of allowing it would be NATO defending Chinese interests in Greenland, which would be a ludicrous position to put the U.S. in.

I try to look back through history and find parallels that might bear on the current situation. The one that I thought about was Operation Barbarossa when the Nazi's attacked Russia in 1941. The best cold weather military force at that time was the Russian Siberian forces, which had been placed near Japan, fearing a two front war with the Axis powers. Hitler tried to convince the Japanese to not attack the U.S.; but they did and realizing that Japan would be preoccupied with fighting the U.S., the Russians quickly brought the Siberian forces into the defense against Germany in the dead of a brutal winter in Russia. Most military analysts say that this was the major event (along with the early cold weather) that stopped the German advance. Right now Russia is occupied in Ukraine; but when that war is resolved, their aspirations for Arctic dominance will become a flashpoint.

RDKirk · 2026-01-20T14:08:57-0600

tz620q said:
Right now Russia is occupied in Ukraine; but when that war is resolved, their aspirations for Arctic dominance will become a flashpoint.

Ukraine didn't start that war. If Russia had aspirations on Greenland, they wouldn't have started a war in Ukraine.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Is Greenland the reward?

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Stuck on a ship.

See in the dark

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'​

See in the dark

Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'​

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Regular Member

Stuck on a ship.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

See in the dark

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

See in the dark

Regular Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads

Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'

Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'